Do you think the OGL was a good idea?

[Umbran]

By fostering the development of a vibrant third-party marketplace for adventures and other tertiary products, WotC reaped increased sales of its core rulebooks, driving revenue above where it would have been without an OGL. The reason is that a vastly expanded universe of low-margin adventure products create demand for the core books, which provide the bulk of WotC's D&D-related profits. Further driving 3e sales was the protection against forced obsolescence that 3e rulebook purchasers enjoyed under the OGL, because anybody who was on the fence about purchasing the core books knew and understood that their edition would continue to receive third-party support in the event a substandard new edition was eventually foisted upon them.

In theory. Unfortunately, you're comparing the real-world results to a hypothetical, which is always dicey. We don't actually know how 3e would have done without the 3rd party publishers, or, say, with a license that gave WotC some say in quality control.

It is a plausible argument, but there are enough variables that plausible does not equate to a sure thing.

 

[Mark CMG]

We don't actually know how 3e would have done (. . .) with a license that gave WotC some say in quality control.

The d20 System Trademark License did that to some degree and to a greater degree when they altered the d20 System Trademark License (the latter prompting the Book of Erotic Fantasy to subsequently be published OGL-only in 2006). Up until that alteration, it was more common to publish using the d20 STL (in combination with the OGL) but some folks didn't like the idea that WotC might pull the plug on a project after it had been printed/released and it became more common afterward to publish without the d20STL. By the time WotC was moving on to 4E and revoked the d20 STL, they had already created an environment where many folks were publishing OGL-only. I wonder, if they hadn't nudged folks to publishing OGL-only by altering the d20 STL if it would have been as easy for folks to publish OGL-only D&D-related materials at the time the d20 STL was officially pulled. I think with the couple of years of a running start, it was less jarring for the market which had gotten used to such materials being OGL-only. It's my opinion that the d20 STL was very strong early on but that WotC themselves weakened it and paved the way for a much stronger post-3.XE OGL environment.

 

[delericho]

The d20 System Trademark License did that to some degree and to a greater degree when they altered the d20 System Trademark License (the latter prompting the Book of Erotic Fantasy to subsequently be published OGL-only in 2006). Up until that alteration, it was more common to publish using the d20 STL (in combination with the OGL) but some folks didn't like the idea that WotC might pull the plug on a project after it had been printed/released and it became more common afterward to publish without the d20STL. By the time WotC was moving on to 4E and revoked the d20 STL, they had already created an environment where many folks were publishing OGL-only.

Indeed. Perhaps also worth noting that there was a d20 glut early on, which served to devalue that license somewhat, and so when 3.5e came along and wiped the slate clean, that was also a time to re-evaluate whether you really wanted the anti-sales point of the d20 logo on your book, or if what you really wanted was OGL-only.

 

[Mark CMG]

Indeed. Perhaps also worth noting that there was a d20 glut early on, which served to devalue that license somewhat, and so when 3.5e came along and wiped the slate clean, that was also a time to re-evaluate whether you really wanted the anti-sales point of the d20 logo on your book, or if what you really wanted was OGL-only.

I'd say a few things in that regard. If by the slate being wiped clean you mean lots of folks felt 3.0 material couldn't be used with 3.5, there did seem to be that mindset (though it really was generally untrue). I think, more importantly, it did thin the herd of publishers as many seemed to drop out of publishing, though new ones took their place. I also don't know if the early boom of products devalued the d20 STL in any way. 3.5 hit in June of 2004 and seemed to serve to revitalize the market after a lull which I am not sure I would place at anyone's feet other than the natural cycle of the typical RPG. I don't recall anyone dropping the d20 STL as 3.5 came along specifically to distance themselves from it for "glut" reasons if the option to use it was available to them. It was another year and a half before the d20 STL language was altered with the decency clause.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'd say a few things in that regard. If by the slate being wiped clean you mean lots of folks felt 3.0 material couldn't be used with 3.5, there did seem to be that mindset (though it really was generally untrue). I think, more importantly, it did thin the herd of publishers as many seemed to drop out of publishing, though new ones took their place. I also don't know if the early boom of products devalued the d20 STL in any way. 3.5 hit in June of 2004 and seemed to serve to revitalize the market after a lull which I am not sure I would place at anyone's feet other than the natural cycle of the typical RPG. I don't recall anyone dropping the d20 STL as 3.5 came along specifically to distance themselves from it for "glut" reasons if the option to use it was available to them. It was another year and a half before the d20 STL language was altered with the decency clause.

3.5 was 2003, the d20 glut crash was 2004 IIRC.

 

[Mark CMG]

3.5 was 2003

My bad. I meant June 2003. I came out with the 3.5 SRD Revised on July 1, 2003.


http://www.rpgnow.com/product/17705/Aid-SRD-35-Revised-Full-Bundle

the d20 glut crash was 2004 IIRC.

I (and I think delericho) was referring to the time before the release of 3.5, when we were three years into 3.0, the products were plentiful, WotC was seemingly running low on splat book ideas, and even 3PP were stretching how niche they might write material. Desktop publishing had come far enough by then for nearly anyone with an idea to pen a handful of pages and put the d20 logo on it and the license at the back. There were also a ton of fan sites and netbooks by then. There was a lot of very cool innovation but the pie was definitely being cut into smaller and smaller slices. There was a mad scramble when 3.5 was announced. Many threw up their hands, not wanting to have to learn all of the minor (and a few major) changes to the system, come up with new products or convert old ones so they wouldn't see out of date. But a lot of new folks jumped on board, those who may have previously thought the field was too crowded and now saw some new space. There was a period when B&M stores were unloading 3.0 products for a song. I used to make some deals to snap them up and bring them to the EN World Chicago gamedays as prizes. I think it was a couple/few more years before that really began to happen again, closer to when WotC was slowing down their cycle and it was becoming apparent another new edition might be in the works. So maybe late 2005, early 2006?

 

[pemerton]

I wonder, if they hadn't nudged folks to publishing OGL-only by altering the d20 STL if it would have been as easy for folks to publish OGL-only D&D-related materials at the time the d20 STL was officially pulled. I think with the couple of years of a running start, it was less jarring for the market which had gotten used to such materials being OGL-only. It's my opinion that the d20 STL was very strong early on but that WotC themselves weakened it and paved the way for a much stronger post-3.XE OGL environment.

This is an interesting conjecture.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I wonder since most support the OGL, what they thought of the Book of Erotic Fantasy?

Now I never understood the HUGE backlash that hit the book, weather you liked it or not. However It was seen at the time as a 'Mistake' in the OGL that it was allowed to flourish...

 

[Nellisir]

I wonder since most support the OGL, what they thought of the Book of Erotic Fantasy?

I thought the reaction was overwrought and pointless. Who cares?

 

[Ahnehnois]

I wonder since most support the OGL, what they thought of the Book of Erotic Fantasy?

Now I never understood the HUGE backlash that hit the book, weather you liked it or not. However It was seen at the time as a 'Mistake' in the OGL that it was allowed to flourish...

I think it was perfectly fine. I don't own one, but I've read it. No big deal.

It probably caused a big reaction among certain groups of people, or among D&D players who are afraid of how they are perceived by said people, but there wasn't anything wrong with the book itself. Just as with other 'adult' RPG books, even though it addressed some adult content, it was clearly bending over backwards to avoid being obscene or pornographic (no pun intended).

That being said, even if someone published material under the OGL that was obscene or legitimately offensive, I wouldn't see that as being an indictment of D&D or its licensing in general. I don't think that our society is so petty and paranoid that it is incapable of holding responsible the people who created the content and not anyone else.